[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO END DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 3, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-158
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/
international--relations
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-625 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
______
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
DANA ROHRABACHER, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
PETER T. KING, New York PAT DANNER, Missouri
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South BRAD SHERMAN, California
Carolina ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MATT SALMON, Arizona STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
AMO HOUGHTON, New York JIM DAVIS, Florida
TOM CAMPBELL, California EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BARBARA LEE, California
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
Stephen G. Rademaker, Chief Counsel
Nicolle A. Sestric, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
WITNESSES
Page
The Honorable Lynn Woolsey, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 6
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York..................................... 6, 8
The Honorable Constance A. Morella a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland..................................... 10
The Honorable Theresa Loar, Director, President's Interagency
Council on Women and Senior Coordinator for International
Women's Issues, U.S. Department of State....................... 20
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York and Chairman, Committee on
International Relations........................................ 34
The Honorable Lynn Woolsey....................................... 35
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney................................. 37
The Honorable Constance A. Morella............................... 41
The Honorable Theresa Loar....................................... 44
Additional material submitted for the record:
Response by the Department of State to the additional question
submitted for the record by Representative Dana Rohrabacher.... 56
Language on equality of women and men adopted by the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Charter for European
Security, Istanbul, November 1999, submitted by Representative
Christopher H. Smith........................................... 58
Excerpts from Reports of the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women, submitted by Representative
Christopher H. Smith........................................... 59
INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO END DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A.
Gilman, (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee on International Relations
meets today to receive testimony on international efforts to
end discrimination against women.
This Committee has repeatedly affirmed its support for the
rights of women. Most recently, on November 9 of last year we
approved H.R. 3244, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act,
which is intended to increase the protections under U.S. and
foreign law for victims of sexual trafficking and slave-like
working conditions, most of whom are women.
This legislation, which moved forward in our Committee
under the leadership of Mr. Smith and Mr. Gejdenson, as well as
other Members of this Committee, should soon be on the House
Floor, and we hope it will make a significant contribution to
our international efforts to increase the protections available
to women.
Regrettably, for reasons that I have never found
persuasive, the Administration opposes the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act.
The Administration has, however, been active in other areas
in seeking to combat discrimination against women. One of those
areas is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women, the so-called CEDAW treaty.
President Carter signed that Convention in 1980, but it has
never been ratified by the U.S. Senate.
The Convention is strongly supported by the Clinton
Administration. Supporters of the Convention today blame the
Senate Majority for the fact that the Convention has not been
ratified. However, I submit that had President Clinton pressed
this matter more vigorously during the first 2 years of his
Administration, when Senator Pell chaired the Foreign Relations
Committee, he might have obtained Senate ratification of the
Convention in 1993 or 1994, and we would not be here talking
about it today.
The objectives of the Convention are laudable. Critics of
the Convention have complained that it is overly broad, and I
hope that our witnesses will be able to dispel those concerns.
We look forward to hearing today's testimony about the steps
the Administration is taking in this and other areas to end
discrimination against women.
I now recognize the Ranking Minority Member, the gentleman
from Connecticut, Mr. Gejdenson, for any opening remarks.
Mr. Gejdenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join with you in
supporting this legislation and this hearing. Representative
Woolsey has done outstanding work on it. We are very happy to
see Congresswoman Maloney, also an active supporter, here
today.
We think that with 160 some other countries already on
board, it is outrageous that the U.S. Senate has prevented the
United States from becoming a signatory to this legislation,
and I think that without any question we should move this very
rapidly from our Committee.
We see today a world where women are still finding
discrimination not just in education, in health care, in the
area of work, but even their survival in many societies is
endangered by custom and activities which threaten the survival
of women, abuse them physically, and sell them into slavery,
and so it is outrageous that we in this country have not joined
this international effort.
I commend again Ms. Woolsey and her colleagues for their
tremendous effort in this area.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, there is no
question that women in many countries face discrimination in
areas such as employment, education, housing and access to
financial resources. I am entirely sympathetic to this issue,
and I welcome the opportunity to examine how the United States
and this Congress can support substantive efforts to end such
discrimination and can encourage full and equal respect for
human rights of all people, women and children.
Through law and practice, Mr. Chairman, the United States
has been a leader in advancing equality of opportunity for
women and men. The United States has ratified human rights
instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which mandate non-discriminatory respect for
fundamental human rights.
I stand second to no one in my determination that human
rights of all people should be respected. The Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,
though, is not about ending discrimination against women in the
United States because in this country women do possess tools
necessary to seek redress if they face discrimination.
CEDAW ratification is about furthering an agenda which
seeks to insure abortion on demand and which refuses to
recognize any legitimate distinctions between men and women. If
there is any question on this, one need only look at the U.N.
website, which proudly proclaims that CEDAW is the only human
rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women
and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping
gender roles and family relations.
As a party to CEDAW, the United States would subject itself
to the jurisdiction of a U.N. committee that was established to
enforce compliance with CEDAW. Only a few examples of this
committee's opinions are needed to demonstrate the agenda
advanced by CEDAW.
First, the CEDAW committee has interpreted the treaty's
language on eliminating discrimination against women and access
to health care to mean that it is discriminatory for the
government to refuse to legally provide for the performance of
certain reproductive health care services for women. This is a
step toward the globalization of legalized abortion that I and
many other of my colleagues can never support because, frankly,
we believe that abortion is violence against children.
If one just looks at the methods that are employed by the
abortionist, dismemberment of an unborn child, chemical
poisoning, these types of acts are violence against children.
Many countries have come under the scrutiny of CEDAW, and they
have been encouraged, admonished and even not compelled, but
close to it, to change their laws that protect the rights of
unborn children.
Second, the treaty obligates state parties to modify the
social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women in
order to eliminate stereotyped roles for women and men. As
American citizens, we should be appalled by the notion that our
government would assert the authority to modify the roles that
a husband and wife have undertaken in their family because a
government expert believes those roles are based on social or
cultural stereotypes.
Earlier this year, for example, the CEDAW committee
demonstrated its view of such stereotyped roles when it
expressed concern that Belorussia had introduced symbols such
as a Mothers Day and Mothers Award. In the CEDAW committee's
opinion, these symbols encourage women's traditional roles and,
therefore, should be eliminated. Do our constituents, Mr.
Chairman, really want a group of international bureaucrats
telling them that the day set aside to honor our mothers must
be abolished? I think not.
The United States does not have to ratify CEDAW in order to
be a leader in human rights. Signing a treaty does not make a
country a leader in human rights. China and Burma, to name just
a few examples, have both ratified CEDAW, but no one would
seriously suggest that those countries have a better record
than the United States for respecting the human rights of
women.
Rather than argue over legal instruments as controversial
and fundamentally flawed as CEDAW, this Committee and this
Congress should be discussing ways for the United States and
other countries to implement the human rights commitments that
already have been made. The United States is a leader in human
rights because its actions demonstrate a belief that human
rights must be respected equally for men and women.
The United States has set an example for the international
community by establishing effective mechanisms for women and
men to seek redress when recognition of their rights is denied
on the basis of sex. In the United States, if an individual
suffers discrimination despite legal restrictions against it,
he or she can seek legal recourse on the basis of anti-
discrimination legislation.
This past year, Mr. Chairman, the U.S. delegation to the
OSCE, and the Helsinki Commission which I chair, in the House,
Senate and the Executive Branch, successfully advanced language
in the Charter for European Security, and I strongly supported
it, that commits OSCE participating States to ``make equality
between men and women an integral part of our policies'' and
that commits participating states to specifically ``undertake
measures to eliminate all forms of discrimination against
women.''
What is needed now is implementation of such commitments.
For example, the constitutions of most, if not all, of the OSCE
countries, like scores of other countries in other regions,
state that men and women have equal rights under the law, but
despite this statement of principle women in most of these
countries lack any effective legal redress if they face
discrimination in employment, education, housing or access to
credit.
Using the OSCE framework and its own example, the United
States can encourage other participating States to fulfill
their OSCE commitments by adopting comprehensive anti-
discrimination legislation that enables women to assert their
rights.
The Congress can also take the lead in the international
community, and I offered the resolution last year in St.
Petersburg at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly which seeks to
crack down on this offensive, horrific abuse of women,
especially in trafficking. Many trafficking victims are women
who face unemployment in their native countries because of sex
discrimination, but have no effective means of challenging that
discrimination.
Earlier in this Congress, Congressman Sam Gejdenson and I
introduced a bill, H.R. 3244, which hopefully will be up on the
Floor shortly, that would severely punish persons in the United
States convicted of trafficking in human beings and provide
incentives for foreign countries to initiate efforts to combat
this outrageous abuse of women.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that some other documentation be
included in the record, including the OSCE text that was
adopted in Istanbul in November 1999 with regards to equality
of rights.
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Gejdenson.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, frankly I am a little
concerned about the issues raised by Mr. Smith. I know he does
it earnestly, but I think that this is good legislation.
Even though there are clearly countries that sign onto this
Convention who may not be carrying it out, it is not the
converse that without America's approval that somehow the
situation is better. I know I am in support of this.
Mr. Chairman, I was wondering. Are you planning to support
this legislation, Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gilman. I am strongly in support of the objectives
of the CEDAW convention. I am looking forward to today's
hearing because I want to hear the Administration's responses
to some of the objections that have been raised by critics of
the Convention.
Any other Members seeking recognition? Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just thank you for
holding this hearing.
The issue of discrimination against women in the United
States and around the world is one that must be addressed, and
I appreciate the Committee holding the hearing so we can hear
from our colleagues on this, and thank you, Congresswomen
Woolsey and Maloney, for being here and for taking the lead on
our behalf.
Unfortunately, discrimination against women is still
widespread both in the United States and around the world. Here
in our country, for example, the tools may be available to
women, but often times they are not available due to either
their race or economic status. The issue of race
discrimination, domestic violence, economic opportunity, access
to health care are still basic human issues that for some women
present a struggle in their lives here in America and abroad.
Certainly we have made significant strides, but there is
much that needs to be done. CEDAW is a single, comprehensive
treaty to protect women's rights and was drafted and pursued by
advocates with United States participation. The year 2000 marks
20 years since CEDAW was opened for ratification, so we must
move this forward. It is a moral imperative. Congress must not
turn a blind eye to the need to make women's rights around the
world a priority.
Thank you very much for the hearing again, Mr. Chairman. I
look forward to the testimony.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Any other Members----
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Hastings. Judge Hastings.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this hearing. I would like to compliment our
colleagues, Ms. Maloney and Ms. Woolsey, for their leadership
not only as it pertains to CEDAW, but on women's issues and
issues with reference to people who are discriminated against
in general.
Mr. Chairman, I think it sends a very poor signal to
countries around the world that the United States has not
ratified the CEDAW treaty. I take this opportunity to point out
that this is not the only treaty that does not allow for
difficulties to be addressed. We have also not ratified the
convention on the child, which was passed by the United Nations
in 1989 and we became signatories to in 1995.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I filed some legislation hoping to
remedy that particular problem and asking that the Senate
expedite its business, as well as the Administration, with
reference to the ratification of the CEDAW treaty and the
convention on the child.
In my view, we are lagging behind the rest of the world. On
the convention of the child, only the United States and Somalia
have not ratified that treaty. I find that abhorrent, and I
equally find it abhorrent that we have not moved the pace with
reference to the treaty that we are here about today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Judge Hastings.
Any other Members seeking recognition?
If not, we will now proceed with our panelists. Our first
panel this morning consists of three of our distinguished
colleagues, Congresswoman Woolsey, Congresswoman Morella and
Congresswoman Maloney. Congresswoman Morella has not yet
arrived.
Congresswoman Maloney of New York is co-chairman of the
Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, and I will ask
Congresswoman Maloney to submit her full statement for the
record or summarize, whichever she sees appropriate.
Congresswoman Maloney.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Would you hold on just a moment? Ms.
Maloney's mike is not working. Would you test it again, please?
Just test it if you would.
Ms. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. It is still not working. Hold on just a
moment.
Ms. Maloney. OK. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your supportive----
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Ms. Maloney [continuing]. Statements and Mr. Gejdenson and
really many, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Lee, all of your statements and
for supporting many of the initiatives of the women's caucus.
This is among our must pass bills that have come forward in the
women's caucus in a bipartisan way with Congresswoman Kelly.
This particular bill was offered by my distinguished
colleague, Ms. Woolsey, and I will defer to her for the opening
statement and follow her comments.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam
Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Ms. Woolsey of California has been very
active on women's rights and is the Minority Deputy Whip on the
Floor, and she has also served on the Children's Task Force.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LYNN WOOLSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Mr.
Gejdenson and all the wonderful Members that are here and
interested in this issue this morning. I thank you for holding
this hearing and allowing for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Chairman, since being elected in 1992, I have urged the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ratify the convention on
elimination of all forms of discrimination against women known
as CEDAW. Knowing also, Mr. Chairman, your strong stand on
women's international rights, I am hoping that following this
hearing, this Committee will be able to mark up House
Resolution 107, which urges the Senate to ratify CEDAW.
CEDAW, a United Nations treaty, is considered the women's
international bill of rights because it establishes basic human
rights for women around the globe. These are rights not fully
addressed in any other treaty. The United Nations recognized
and actually condemned the devastating consequences of gender
discrimination when it adopted CEDAW in 1979.
Chairman Gilman. If I might interrupt, Ms. Woolsey? I am
being called to the Floor. We have four Committee resolutions
on the Floor, and I am going to ask Mr. Campbell, the gentleman
from California, to preside.
Ms. Woolsey. I will miss your presence, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. We will be back.
Mr. Campbell [presiding]. Congresswoman Woolsey, please go
right ahead.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. It is nice to see you, Mr.
Campbell.
As I was saying,----
Mr. Campbell. It is mutual Congresswoman.
Ms. Woolsey [continuing]. CEDAW, a United Nations treaty,
is considered the women's international bill of rights because
it establishes basic human rights to women around the globe.
These are rights that are not fully addressed in any other
treaty.
The United Nations recognized and condemned the devastating
consequences of gender discrimination when it adopted CEDAW in
1979. On July 1980, President Carter signed CEDAW and submitted
it to the Senate for ratification. I am sad and disappointed to
report that this year marks the 20th year that CEDAW has been
available for United States ratification, but the Senate has
yet to ratify.
In 1994, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a
hearing on CEDAW, reported in favor of its ratification with
four reservations, reservations that respond to Congressman
Chris Smith's concerns earlier this morning. There were four
understandings and two declarations.
These provisions address the overriding concerns that CEDAW
critics maintain. Most of these concerns claim that CEDAW would
override the United States Constitution, open the door to
frivolous litigation, force social engineering and promote
abortion. I am confident after reading what came out in the
declarations in 1994 that these concerns were addressed, and
hopefully the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will ratify
CEDAW.
CEDAW is ratified by 165 countries, all of our allies. I am
disappointed that the Senate's inaction puts the United States
in the company of North Korea, Sudan, Somalia and Iran. I am
certain, and I know you will agree, that the United States does
not belong in this company, particularly when it comes to
women's rights.
The United States played a major role in drafting CEDAW,
and now we should live up to our commitment, and we must ratify
it. Furthermore, without ratification the United States will
not be a member at the international committee when the treaty
monitors implementation of its provisions. We will be absent.
The seat that should be filled by the United States will be
vacant.
While some critics feel the committee oversteps or makes
radical recommendations, in fact it has no enforcement
measures, but instead it creates a working framework for
countries to utilize in their quest to promote women's rights.
It is an advisory committee. It is an overview committee, but
it can do no more than make recommendations.
Making the United States a player on this committee would
lend support to the treaty's effectiveness, and it will give
the United States credibility when advocating on women's issues
here at home and around the globe.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to share two examples of how
CEDAW has been effective. First, when Brazil redrafted its
constitution it used CEDAW as the framework for articulating
human rights for women. The Brazilian constitution now contains
provisions on gender equality, gender based violence, state
interest in the prevention of domestic violence, the equality
of rights within marriage, family planning and employment that
parallels CEDAW's provisions.
On the continent of Africa, CEDAW has provided a vehicle
for women. Zambia ratified CEDAW in 1995 and in 1991 extended
its bill of rights to cover sex discrimination. Without that,
many of the rights we have here in our country would not be
available to the women in Africa.
More important, there is a groundswell of support for
ratification right here at home. Ten states, 14 counties and 26
cities have passed resolutions advocating U.S. ratification of
CEDAW. Last year, the Church Women United and the United
Methodist Women and other supporters of CEDAW delivered more
than 10,000 handwritten--every letter was individually written,
and we delivered them to the Senators urging ratification. Each
letter was to an individual Senator.
I can assure those of you who are here today that not only
are people from other countries looking for leadership from the
United States, but so are our constituents. The people's House
must go on record and urge the Senate to ratify CEDAW. Today's
hearing is a great first step in this process.
I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee and
to place the United States in a strong standing for women's
rights globally.
I yield back my time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Representative Woolsey appears
in the appendix.]
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congresswoman Woolsey, for your
fine statement.
Congresswoman Maloney, you had yielded to Congresswoman
Woolsey. Did you wish to conclude?
Ms. Maloney. Yes, I would, and I would like my comments to
be placed in the record as read.
Mr. Campbell. Without objection.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN MALONEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Maloney. I would like to underscore that this is a
national disgrace, an international disgrace. As my colleague
pointed out, 165 nations, countries, have ratified CEDAW. Our
country stands alone with Sudan and North Korea and a few
others.
One point that I would like to point out in response to my
dear friend and colleague, Mr. Smith's, earlier statements.
There is nothing in CEDAW that states that on abortion. It has
nothing to do with it. In fact, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee passed the Helms understanding stating that nothing
in CEDAW creates a right to abortion and should not be promoted
as a method of family planning, so I would like to offer that
if he has an objection to any language in the treaty, we would
entertain deleting it or talking to him about it because what
he said is in it is not there.
The convention continues to languish in the Senate, locked
up in the committee, even though CEDAW contains no provisions
in conflict with American laws, no action has been taken on
CEDAW, and it is really absolutely fundamental.
One aspect that is very important is that very shortly we
will be going to the 5-year review of the international U.N.
conference on women, and in the next 33 days will we or will we
not endorse human rights of women across the world? That is
what we are here to ask today. As many of my colleagues have
said, the Ranking Member, others have said that we absolutely
should do this. This is an absolute embarrassment. The
Administration considers this a major priority.
Family planning. If the gentleman is opposed to abortion,
one way to prevent abortion is through family planning. As Mr.
Campbell knows, he worked very hard last year on various family
planning refunding actually for the first--our country created
the U.N. population program, yet it was defunded, and Mr.
Campbell led the refunding effort, and we thank you for that.
You know that our population is more than 6,000,000,000
now, and by 2050 the United Nations projects that this figure
could double to 12,000,000,000. Most of this growth will occur
in developing countries, the countries where the desire for
family planning service is far greater than the supply.
Already, more than 150,000,000 women and families want
access to family planning services, but do not have the
resources available to them. There are 2,000,000,000 young
people quickly approaching their reproductive years, and will
they have access to family planning, resources they need? This
will have a direct impact on the economic stability of their
countries, on the environment and really the entire world.
Voluntary family planning would help all of these women, and
CEDAW, although it has nothing to do with abortion, it does
promote family planning.
I must say that one thing that is tremendously problematic
is that many nations' governments do not include women in their
definition of human. Consequently, women are denied very basic
rights. I truly believe that empowering women globally reduces
the negative impact of HIV and AIDS, which Ms. Lee has worked
so hard on, along with Chairman Leach, the negative impact of
fast growing population on our rural environment and economy
and improves the education and employment of over half of our
world's community.
The Women's Caucus has also supported two other
resolutions, which I hope this Committee will take up. One is
H.R. 187, which urges the United Nations to reject the Taliban
as a legitimate government in Afghanistan, to deny the Taliban
a seat in the General Assembly as long as they continue to
practice horrific violations of women's rights.
We have had hearings in the Women's Caucus. They must wear
a berka. They are killed if they go to school. They are killed
if they show an ankle or a hand. It is just horrific what is
happening there.
We have also worked on H.R. 1849 to require the Attorney
General to publish regulations relating to gender related
persecution, including female genital mutilation, for use in
determining an alien's eligibility for asylum. This legislation
helps women who are not fortunate enough to be born in the
United States or other industrialized countries and who have no
means to protect themselves. Although we grant asylum on many
bases, we do not for gender related violence, and certainly
female genital mutilation is a horrible, life threatening
practice that needs to be terminated.
In any event, if you read all of CEDAW it merely says let's
empower women with education, with health care, with
information, with knowledge. Let's empower them to be
productive members of their communities and their villages and
their societies. We should be part of the global effort to help
women.
Many countries look to the United States for leadership. It
is an absolute total embarrassment. We should not have a
government by one person, in this case Mr. Helms, who has held
up this very important treaty. Again, 165 nations cannot be
wrong. We should join 165 nations in time for the United
Nations General Assembly where they review Beijing plus five.
My distinguished colleague, Connie Morella, has joined us.
Thank you very much, and I yield back the balance and would
like my rather lengthy statement to be placed in the record,
which is a lot more than what I said.
[The prepared statement of Representative Maloney appears
in the appendix.]
Mr. Campbell. Congresswoman Maloney, your words will be
included in the record barring no objection.
Ms. Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
We are joined now by Congresswoman Morella, the third
member of our panel of Members. Congresswoman Morella has long
been active in international and human rights issues. She was
the first women to chair the Arms Control and Foreign Policy
Caucus. She represented the United States at the U.N.
Conference on Population and Development in Cairo. She co-
chaired the congressional delegation to the United Nations
Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing.
She is the Subcommittee Chair of the Science Committee's
Technology Subcommittee and vice-chair of the Committee on
District of Columbia of the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee and a friend and a champion of women's rights and
human rights in every other respect.
It is a pleasure to welcome you, Congresswoman Morella.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Ms. Morella. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. I am sorry I was not here to hear the statements of
my distinguished colleagues. I know in part what they have said
and certainly associate myself with their comments.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before
the Committee today, and I am especially pleased to be here
with my colleagues to talk about actions that we can take on
foreign policy to reverse discrimination against women around
the world, and the affirmative steps that we can take to help
the world's women and their daughters to overcome the effects
of discrimination.
The Committee and Congress have enacted a number of
initiatives in the last decade or two in recognition of the
problems that women and girls face. They include authorization
and funding for programs dealing with micro credit, family
planning, rape victims, domestic abuse, and treatment of
torture survivors, just to name a few. I am also pleased by the
recent attention which has been given to the problem of sex
trafficking, and I am sure that the Committee will continue to
investigate the problem and the best way we can work to bring
about its demise.
Mr. Chairman, the importance of women's roles and
development and potentially differential impact of USAID
policies and programs on women and men, because of gender roles
and activities, has been recognized for more than 30 years.
Particularly in the last decade, there has been a realization
of the centrality of the status of women in developing and
implementing sustainable development policies and programs.
This week, the HIV and AIDS pandemic was declared a
national security threat. In Africa, whole regions are being
ravaged. Families lose some of what economic power they had
when a parent dies and the rest when a second parent, having
been infected by the first, dies. Children drop out of school
to replace their parents' income, or to care for them while
they are ill, and then are orphaned.
Extrapolate this scenario to account for tens of millions
of people populating some two dozen countries over the next 10
or 20 years. Inadequate social safety nets are overwhelming
governments that are unable to cope. People become politically
alienated. Economies contract. Nations destabilize.
HIV and AIDS is not an African problem alone. Disease
spreads. It is everyone's problem. Infection rates are rising
at alarming rates in Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America. In
addition to a number of praiseworthy proposals which had been
made to address the African crisis, one of the best tools we
have to fight the spread of HIV and AIDS is to assure that
women and men have access to quality reproductive health
information and facilities.
We have not invested sufficient resources in these programs
in the last several years. Regardless of the restrictions which
may or may not be attached, we need to reverse the trend.
Meeting the President's requested funding level for family
planning programs for the coming year would be a good start.
I was honored to be part of a special order on global HIV
and AIDS last evening that was led by Ms. Lee, a Member of this
Committee, and I very much valued the fact that we had an
opportunity to promote awareness with the public.
Disease spreads. Congressman Brown and I have introduced
legislation to address one of the fastest growing killers,
tuberculosis. TB kills 2,000,000 people every year. That is a
person every 15 seconds. Globally, TB is the biggest killer of
young women. The World Health Organization estimates that one-
third of the world's people are infected with the bacteria that
causes tuberculosis, and there are 8,000,000 new cases every
year. It is spreading because of inadequate treatment, and it
knows no national borders.
In my own district, so-called affluent Montgomery County,
Maryland, earlier this year a woman had to be forcibly removed
from her apartment by government health personnel because she
refused to be treated.
There is a highly effective, inexpensive treatment for
tuberculosis known as directly observed treatment short course
called DOTS, the acronym. Under DOTS, health workers directly
monitor patients with tuberculosis for the purpose of insuring
that they take their full course of medicine, and yet fewer
than one in five of those who are ill with tuberculosis are
receiving DOTS treatment, and, according to World Bank
estimates, DOTS treatment is one of the most cost effective
health interventions available. $20 to $100 will save a life,
and it can produce cure rates as high as 95 percent even in the
poorest countries.
Mr. Chairman, it is a universal truth that education is key
to economic well being, but in too many countries access to
education is limited. Girls particularly are disadvantaged.
UNICEF reports that 150,000,000 children do not attend school,
and two-thirds of them are girls. Those girls who do attend
drop out in higher numbers than boys. So investing in girls'
education is one of the most effective means of promoting
economic growth and poverty reductions. We know from studies
that additional education corresponds with reduced family size,
reduced rates of infant and maternal mortality, healthier and
better nourished families. These trends are continued in
following generations.
Our assistance programs should be designed to insure equity
in education to meet the needs of girls. Governments should
promote policies to encourage them to enroll and stay in school
and to recruit more female teachers. Parents and community
members must be mobilized to support and promote girls'
education and participate in decisionmaking and oversight
regarding schools in their communities.
I know I am preaching to the choir here as I go on with
education and tuberculosis and HIV and AIDS, but you are
awfully nice to listen.
Mr. Campbell. It is our privilege, Congresswoman Morella.
Please continue.
Ms. Morella. Although great attention has been given to the
role of women in sustainable development programs, gender
analysis of the impact of our programs continues to lag.
USAID's progress in integrating gender analysis through its
assistance programs has been hindered by a lack of structures
and mechanisms to insure accountability. AID is addressing this
with its adoption of its gender action plan meant to built
agency wide commitment, capacity and incentives for integrating
gender analysis into its policies, programs and projects.
Later this month, the AID Advisory Committee on Voluntary
Foreign Assistance will file its report assessing the
implementation of the plan. I think it should include reporting
on integration of gender analysis and the impact of USAID
policies, programs and projects in its annual presentation to
Congress, and I think AID missions should be held to account
for their efforts to integrate gender analysis into programs
and explain their inability to do so if they cannot.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the subjects
which I have briefly mentioned--education, health, gender based
analysis of the effects of the assistance programs--are going
to be addressed in comprehensive legislation that I am planning
to introduce, and I hope all of you will become cosponsors of
it.
In collaboration with Congressman Porter, Congresswoman
Lowey, and Congresswoman Kilpatrick, we have been working with
a consortium of non-governmental organizations led by Women's
EDGE to develop the Global Actions and Investments for New
Success for Women and Girls Act.
The GAINS Act, will address U.S. policy, education, health,
micro credit, refugees, trafficking, as well as other subjects.
I look forward to working with this Committee on that
legislation. I hope you will give it serious consideration.
I had a comment in here for Mr. Gilman, but since he is not
here he can read my testimony and know that I said good things
about him and that this might well be the last hearing that I
would appear before that he would be chairing.
In closing, I wanted to thank you for calling the hearing
and allowing me to testify before this very distinguished
Committee. I thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Representative Morella appears
in the appendix.]
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congresswoman. Without objection,
your full statement, including the laudatory comments of
Chairman Gilman, will be included in the record.
It is traditional not to put any Members to questions
unless they would wish it. I will just use this one moment to
say thanks to Congresswoman Maloney for your kind words about
me, but, as I recall, it was you and me together, and it could
not have been possible without both of us working for funding
international family planning. The importance of that is that
you and I share awareness of equality, and I commend you every
bit as much.
What I would like to do, since I was not able to make an
opening statement, is just to state the following, and then if
you have a comment or disagreement that is fine. It will only
take a minute, after which I would yield to my colleagues.
As to self-executing provisions of the treaty, as I
understand it there are none. So, Mr. Smith or other Members of
our Committee who might be worried about an intrusion on
sovereign United States rights should be reassured that the
treaty itself does not include self-executing provisions.
Rather, it is a call to arms, if you will, or a call to action,
but the action has to be done by American constitutional
processes.
Second, there is some value, nevertheless. I do not want to
say that this is toothless. There is some tremendous value,
particularly under the alien tort statute, a subject I used to
teach, but let me just take it for a second and say this.
An alien can sue in the United States courts for tort
committed in violation of the law of nations. Victims of gender
mutilation can, in my view, take advantage of this, but a court
might say that the United States recognition of this abuse as
an international human rights violation is in doubt since the
United States had not ratified CEDAW. The ratification of
CEDAW, in other words, provides a very strong premise that
American courts will use to allow a suit under the alien tort
statute for violations of women's rights.
Those two observations I wanted to put on the record, and
perhaps Ms. Loar will be able to speak to them in her
testimony.
I would yield to any of the panelists if you would wish to
comment on that.
If not, I will go to the next speaker, who is Mr. Hastings.
Mr. Hastings, do you have any questions for our colleagues?
Mr. Hastings. I do, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. I also
would like to add a comment.
When Ms. Morella, my good friend and a good friend to all
of us, joined the panel, at some point during the course of
your testimony, Ms. Morella, you commented to the fact that you
were preaching to the choir. It is a very small choir here, and
I think that is one of the problems.
Very occasionally, those of us, particularly men who are
avant-garde about women's issues, do not have the ear of some
of our colleagues that we work with on a day to day basis, and
I do not say that disparagingly, but with an abundance of
understanding that we need to develop strategies to be sure to
include significant numbers of persons who can be influential
in the objectives that we are trying to achieve.
Toward that end, the legislation that you and your
colleagues have been working on, I beg of you at the earliest
time you accept cosponsors that you include me, and then at
least I know I will be on record early on as matters go.
Additionally, I would like to say that I think all of us
here who are concerned know that a part of the problem is the
now chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I do not
know Senator Helms. I have never met him, and I only know his
reputation through what I hear as I travel about the world.
I do not know that he knows, and I believe he does need to
know, that there are those who feel that he has pretty much
individually hijacked foreign relations in the United States of
America. Toward that end, when Senator Bob Graham and myself
introduced legislation dealing with the convention on the child
and the fact that it had not been ratified--I will use media
speak--a high ranking Senate source said to me that no treaties
were going to be ratified because Senator Helms did not choose
to do so.
We love our government, and we have great reason to have
better understanding from the Senator. If there is to be a
strategy developed, it should be to pressure him to understand
that when 163 countries have ratified a treaty like CEDAW or we
find ourselves in a position where countries are moving forward
on matters as it pertains to discrimination against women, and
yet we are the alleged champions and have not done the simple
act of ratifying a treaty with the clarifications. I might add
I do not hear, and I guess my question to you all is I do not
hear any objection now.
I heard from both Ms. Woolsey's and Ms. Morella's testimony
that the clarifications or the reservations that were offered
by Senator Helms would go right along with any new visit that
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee might have and that you
all at this point are not raising objections to some of the
reservations. Am I correct about that?
Ms. Woolsey. You are absolutely correct, and the language
in 1994 from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee acted on
the matter. There were reservations that would state clearly
that CEDAW does not create a right to abortions and that
abortions should not be promoted as a method of family
planning.
Mr. Hastings. Right.
Ms. Woolsey. It was clear in the language.
Mr. Hastings. Well, I for the life of me then do not
understand what other reservations exist, and if they are out
there they ought to be known.
Let me ask you, and this will be my final question, Mr.
Chairman, since many of the countries that have ratified CEDAW
continue to have very poor records in terms of discrimination
against women.
I heard lengthy testimony about Iran and some of their
actions. I know that in Iraq and Burma, just as two examples,
that women are discriminated against, as well as many countries
in Africa. What can the United States do, or do we have any
leverage at this point, to make CEDAW a more effective tool for
achieving concrete results in ending discrimination against
women around the world?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, sir, we can do nothing if we do not
ratify it in our own country. That makes us voiceless. If we
have a seat at the table, then we can advise. We can recommend.
We can weigh in with our statements, but when we have not
ratified the treaty then we are really voiceless in this
regard.
Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Morella. May I make a comment, too?
Mr. Hastings. Yes, please. Thanks, Connie.
Ms. Morella. I was at the U.N. Conference on Environment in
Rio, Population and Development in Cairo, and Women in Beijing.
All of them dealt with empowering women because this would
empower societies, whether it was through education, removing
violence from one's life, health access, which deals with
microenterprise, which deals with enhancing our environment. It
all ties in.
I do not know why we have had such reticence about signing
on to these U.N. conventions when we are leaders with regard to
these conferences. I would submit that we should continue, as
Representative Woolsey has, to try to get ratification of it,
but at the same time we have to look at these other programs
that are doing that very thing, eliminating discrimination
against women.
Ms. Maloney. To respond to the gentleman's question of how
we can put more teeth, obviously passing CEDAW is an important
symbolic statement. As was pointed out, Helms' understanding
which stated that nothing in CEDAW creates a right to abortion
was literally passed out of the Senate, and still the Senate
did not ratify it.
Likewise with my colleague, Ms. Morella, we were delegates
to the world conference in Beijing, China, 5 years ago where
the report from the United States delegation called for the
ratification of CEDAW, and in just 33 days we will be meeting
in New York for the 5-year review of Beijing. You will have at
least 180 countries there. It will be very embarrassing if the
report from the United States states that we still have not met
up to the commitment that we made in Beijing, China, as a
delegation to ratify CEDAW.
The funding for USAID and UNFPA helps countries around the
world combat AIDS, female genital mutilation, education and
health empowerment, and one of the bills that we have put
forward is called Back to the Future. Mr. Campbell has helped
me with that, as well as Ms. Lee and Ms. Morella and Ms.
Woolsey, and it calls for funding at 1995 levels; not 1999
levels, but what we funded UNFPA and USAID back in 1995, to go
out and empower women and educate communities about the
importance of educating women.
When you educate women, you educate the village, the family
and the stability of the country, the knowledge not only on
family planning, but AIDS prevention, health care education, so
funding these two very vital programs that the United States
literally created and led for many years, if we can continue to
go back to the future with 1995 levels of funding for USAID and
UNFPA.
Mr. Hastings. Mr. Chairman, if you would just indulge me
just one moment?
Mr. Campbell. Of course. The gentleman has additional time.
Mr. Hastings. Chris Smith, one of our colleagues from New
Jersey that has been very active on a number of subjects
pertaining to women, one being the trafficking of women. When
Congressman Smith and I and others were in attendance at the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe last year,
he introduced a resolution on behalf of the United States
delegation, of which I was a participant and signatory to. We
met not resistance, but guffaws almost from our colleagues in
the United Kingdom and Canada asking us where were we on the
ratification of this treaty, and so it hampers our interfacing
with other organizations, that organization being one, that is
a 54 member country organization, all of whom have ratified
CEDAW.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congressman Hastings.
The Congressman's comment reminds me to be sure that I am a
cosponsor of your resolutions. Would you kindly see that my
name is included if it has not been already?
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you. I believe you are. Certainly Mr.
Hastings is. We would love to put you on it.
Mr. Campbell. Very well.
Mr. Chabot is next--we alternate between parties--if you
would like. Otherwise we will proceed.
Thank you. We will proceed then. I apologize to Mr.
Delahunt. I understand the rule is in terms of the order you
show up rather than seniority, so I apologize. I yield now to
Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. No need to apologize, Mr. Chairman. In fact,
Mr. Hastings absolutely I think echoed my own concerns.
I will be very brief other than simply to say to my
colleagues a job well done. Thank you for your perseverance,
your persistence. I agree. It is an embarrassment. It is indeed
unfortunate.
I welcome the observation by the learned constitutional
scholar, our pro tem chairman, Mr. Campbell, relative to the
self-executing provisions because after listening to Mr. Smith
I was concerned about Mothers Day, but it would appear that
Mothers Day would survive ratification of CEDAW.
I really think that you all got to the quick because I
suspect that the real concern is the abortion issue, and you
have been very clear and unequivocal that the reservation by
Senator Helms would be retained, and I do not see any rational
basis for why we have not ratified it.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. Campbell. Congresswoman Lee of Oakland.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. Let me just find out from
you, Congresswoman Woolsey. In terms of women's international
organizations and the human rights organizations, what has been
the general feedback from these groups with regard to the lack
of United States ratification of the treaty?
Ms. Woolsey. Over 100 women's and church groups support
ratification of CEDAW. They know it is the right thing for the
United States to have a seat at the table. Congresswoman, as I
told you, the Church Women United and the United Methodist
Women brought 10,000 handwritten letters to me, and we made
sure they got to individual Senators, saying thank you to the
Senators who had signed on to ratify CEDAW and encouraging
those who were holding back. That is 10,000 handwritten. They
could get more.
Ms. Lee. Short of changing chairs with the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, which we know is not going to happen, what
do we do next? I mean, I think this is a major step in the
right direction, but how do we move forward?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, the next step, of course, will be to
have this Committee mark up House Resolution 107, get it to the
House Floor, and then the House can vote on it. We have 112
bipartisan cosponsors now that we have Mr. Campbell on our
legislation. We will pass it out of the House which urges the
Senate to ratify CEDAW. It has to be ratified in the Senate and
the Senate must take action.
You know, it is all right that Senator Helms disagrees with
CEDAW. It is all right that Congressman Smith has
disagreements, but, you know, this is a democracy, and Senator
Helms must know that he has to let the other 99 Senators weigh
in and vote on whether or not they support it.
This is not a country with a one person democracy. We have
to insist that he see it that way. He can vote any way he
wants, but he has no right not to let the rest of the Senate
weigh in.
If we would start here, that would help. We will let the
rest----
Ms. Maloney. Passing it out of the House would be a huge
statement.
Ms. Woolsey. Right.
Ms. Maloney. A huge statement.
Ms. Woolsey. Yes. If we pass it out of the House, it will
be a national statement that will have to be heard.
Thank you for asking.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. Let me just comment with regard to the
work that all of you have done in terms of raising this to the
public's attention. I found after last year's series of
activities, many women in this country were shocked to find
that we had not ratified it. For some reason, the word had not
gone out, but I think now we have a prime opportunity thanks to
all of you and what we are doing to engage women. The 10,000
signatures, as well as what has been going on throughout the
country now, I think gives us a real unique opportunity to move
this forward.
Just on behalf of my constituents I want to say thank you
very much for everything.
Ms. Woolsey. And thank you for your support.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell. Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. I want to thank the panel. This is really an
issue that I think deserves the light of day to be cast clearly
and squarely upon it. We are in an untenable position--not
moving this forward.
Senator Helms, in blocking Committee action on this treaty,
is not reflecting his own party. He is not reflecting the U.S.
Senate and certainly not reflecting the American people, so I
really commend you for your participation in this hearing
today.
I hope I am on the resolution. Like our Chairman, if I am
not, please put me on. I would want to be.
I would like to ask your thoughts on the relationship of
this treaty to the education of girls in Third World countries.
I have become convinced that that issue, education of girls in
Third World countries, is the single most important thing that
we can do as part of our foreign policy to address systemic
difficulties resulting in health epidemics, resulting in war,
resulting in dysfunctional economies.
It really is at the heart of so very much that is wrong
that we try to bandaid our way over with these kind of ad hoc,
knee jerk responses, but we are not getting at the crux of it,
which is the education of girls. What is the relationship
between this treaty and that issue, any of you?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, Mr. Pomeroy, education is one of the
major tenets of CEDAW. Equal education, educating girls and
young women.
Mr. Pomeroy. Right.
Ms. Woolsey Education, equality in work, but it starts
with education, and that is one of the major tenets of CEDAW.
Ms. Morella. In my statement, which did not truly address
CEDAW, but addressed discrimination against women, a major part
of it is education. Two-thirds of those people in developing
countries that are not educated are women, are females, and
when you can see how they are heads of households, how
important that is, and mention was made that in those countries
when you educate a woman you educate a family. That is
important in terms of their understanding of reproductive
health, of micro enterprise endeavors. I will have legislation
on it, but indeed it links up.
I also think this is very important what Congresswoman
Woolsey has been tenacious about and the family planning that
Congresswoman Maloney has been a leader on, but I think it is
important that we match our rhetoric with the actions, and that
is putting the money significantly into AID, directing it
toward education and showing by example that we are more than
words. I believe that very strongly.
Ms. Maloney. Advancing the status of women is not only the
right thing to do, but it is the single, most effective thing
we can do to address the multiple foreign policy goals at one
time.
I appreciate your comments, Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. I want to emphasize this is not just matters
of principle discussed at women's conferences--international
women's conferences. These are fundamentals of economics agreed
to by male economists in boring finance seminars. I mean, it is
just absolutely true. It is common sense. It needs to be moved
forward. I really do commend you for your work.
There are women's issues that do not involve abortion, and
I think that sometimes we get so incredibly sensitive to the
abortion dimension of things that we impose it on all things
about women. Of course, there is no joinder, and we do a
terrible disservice to public policy when we cannot look at
issues rationally that are squarely before us, so you
leadership on this is so very important. Thank you.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy.
We are at the end of the Members' panel. If you wish to say
something else, the Chair certainly is willing to.
Not hearing anything further, thank you, Congresswoman
Woolsey, Congresswoman Maloney, Congresswoman Morella.
Ms. Morella. Mr. Chairman, you are a champ.
Mr. Campbell. Congresswoman Morella, you have what it
takes.
That is a bit of an inside joke as to what you say to a
Member of Congress when you forget their first name. You say
hi, champ, and then the other person says you have what it
takes. I now have explained the inside joke.
Thank you very much. Now it is my distinct privilege to
introduce Theresa Loar, our next and principal witness. Ms.
Theresa Loar was appointed by President Clinton as senior
coordinator for international women's issues at the Department
of State. She was given that appointment 4 years ago in 1996.
She also serves as director of the President's Interagency
Council on Women. She previously served as a State Department
official in Mexico, Korea and various bureaus of the Department
of State.
Ms. Loar, your testimony will be submitted in the record in
full. I appreciate the fact that you took the time and trouble
to prepare 12 pages, but, given that, try instead of--well, you
know what I mean. If you could summarize it?
On a personal note, I would like to say something
interesting that maybe you did not know. In 1981, Ronald
Reagan, President Reagan, established an interagency task force
on women chaired by Elizabeth Dole, I think you have that in
your line of succession. I was the only male member of that
task force.
Ms. Loar, you are welcome.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THERESA LOAR, DIRECTOR, THE
PRESIDENT'S INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON WOMEN AND SENIOR COORDINATOR
FOR INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S ISSUES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. Loar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It sounds like you got
all the training you need for this hearing.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify before your Committee on international women's issues.
I would like to commend the Chairman and this Committee for
focusing on women, one of the most powerful and as yet under
utilized forces for change and progress around the world.
I will make an abbreviated statement and request that my
full testimony be submitted into the record.
As I begin my testimony, I would like to say what an honor
it is to follow such strong congressional champions for women,
Congresswomen Maloney, Woolsey and Morella. They really have
made a mark not just here in the United States, but around the
world.
As I testify today on support for women, I am fortunate to
have with me visiting from New Jersey my No. 1 supporter, a
woman who raised five daughters, one of the great women of the
world, my mother, Ann Loar. I am very glad to have my mother
here with me today.
Mr. Campbell. Ms. Loar, you are most welcome. If you would
stand up? I think the Committee Members would like to recognize
you.
[Applause.]
Ms. Loar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Albright has mandated that the advancement of
women's human rights and the advancement of women be put into
the mainstream of U.S. foreign policy, and under extraordinary
leadership we have made great strides in carrying out this
mandate.
The work we are doing to support women flows out of the
U.N. Conference on Women held in Beijing, China, that so many
of the Members of Congress who spoke earlier referred to. This
gathering of delegates from 189 countries and 50,000 NGO's was
a hallmark event that had profound effects on how governments,
including our own, look at issues affecting women and their
families.
Those of us working to coordinate the U.S. Government
engagement in this conference could not have foreseen the
impact this event would have. Our U.S. delegation included
three distinguished Members of Congress who were here at the
hearing today, Representatives Maloney, Morella and Smith.
Our First Lady, Hilary Rodham Clinton, who led the U.S.
delegation in Beijing, sent out a clarion call to the
international community to recognize that human rights are
women's rights and women's rights are human rights.
My testimony today will report on a powerful partnership
working to improve the lives of women and girls. This
partnership includes our government, NGO's here and around the
world, other governments, international organizations and
Members of this Congress.
The focus is on fighting trafficking and supporting women
democracy builders. I will also reiterate our support for the
women's human rights treaty, the United Nations convention on
the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. I
will also look ahead to Women 2000, the fifth year review of
the Beijing women's conference.
My position as senior coordinator for international women's
issues at the State Department was created through the efforts
of Congress in 1994. President Clinton appointed me to this
position in 1996, and since that time we have made great
progress in institutionalizing issues affecting the lives of
women and the development, formulation and implementation of
U.S. foreign policy.
I have two key areas of focus, expanding women's political
participation and eliminating violence against women. In my
position as director of the President's Interagency Council on
Women, I am proud to represent that the council has served as a
model for other governments committed to progress for women.
Representatives of the governments of India, South Korea and
New Zealand have come to hear how a government task force like
the council can be a catalyst for policy formation to support
women's advancement.
Another key element in my work is the strong partnership
with a broad representation of the NGO community. This is
something that the State Department is starting to do more and
more, but it is not something traditionally the State
Department has done over the years.
My office holds the largest ongoing public briefings with
the NGO community held at the Department of State. For the past
3 years, we have held open and transparent public quarterly
briefings attended by some 300 to 400 individuals. This strong
collaboration with NGO strengthens and informs my work. This
inside/outside strategy has been an effective way to develop
policy.
One of the key issues in the area of violence against women
that has emerged both domestically and internationally in the
last few years is the trafficking and the women and children.
Among the most horrific abuses that women face around the world
is the buying and selling of humans for elicit purposes.
Trafficking is one of the fastest growing criminal
enterprises today behind drug trafficking and arms trafficking.
Although it is sometimes characterized as a women's issue, it
involves not only women, but also children and men. It is first
and foremost a human rights issue, but is also a socio-economic
issue, a public health issue and one organized criminal
activity.
I have met with trafficking victims and organizations
working in the field to help these women and their families,
and I have heard firsthand of the devastation suffered by young
women, sometimes merely only girls, who are deprived of their
childhood when traffickers sold them into slavery. These
encounters have deepened my commitment to marshal the full
breadth of government resources available to confront and stop
trafficking, which now affects over 1,000,000 women and
children each year.
One of the key issues behind trafficking is the low
economic status of women and the low status of girls around the
world. Congressman Pomeroy talked about his commitment to
girls' education. I would echo that and talk about the
importance of educating girls and valuing girls so that they
are not pulled out of school and their childhoods are not cut
short.
The President, the Secretary of State and the Attorney
General have all shown tremendous commitment to this serious
human rights issue. First Lady Hilary Rodham Clinton has worked
tirelessly to bring this issue out of the shadow and onto the
world stage. As a result of this leadership, the full machinery
of the Department of State and several other government
agencies is working on this issue. We have several multi-
lateral initiatives underway with the United Nations, the
European Union and OSCE. Some of the anti-trafficking efforts
of OSCE have benefited from the strong support of Congressman
Smith.
Most recently, the United States and the Philippine
government co-hosted a meeting in the Philippines called the
Asian regional initiative to combat the trafficking of women
and children. This involved over 20 Asian and Pacific nations
who are working together for the first time. Our embassies in
the field are already reporting new levels of cooperation among
the governments of Thailand and Cambodia, for example.
Congress is essential to our efforts on trafficking.
Passage of an effective bill that provides severe punishment
for traffickers and protection for victims from medical
treatment to shelters to the opportunity to become legal
residents is crucial. However, this bill must not, as some have
proposed, inflict mandatory economic sanctions on countries
that may seem to be doing too little to combat trafficking.
This could require the United States to impose sanctions on as
many as two-thirds of the world's governments. Moreover, such a
heavy handed response would cripple NGO's work in this area.
Internationally, we need to achieve consensus and rapid
ratification by states working on the U.N. trafficking protocol
being negotiated in Vienna. We look forward to continue working
with Congress.
My other key area of focus is promoting women's political
participation so that as the time that we live in now offers us
great opportunities for democracy to take hold. Our key program
for that effort is the Vital Voices Women in Democracy
initiative. This is an ongoing global initiative that
implements Secretary Albright's mandate to promote the
advancement of women as a U.S. foreign policy objective. It has
benefited from the strong support of the First Lady.
At some conferences we have announced U.S. Government
commitments. For example, in Vienna we announced $3 million to
fight trafficking and violence. We have now surpassed $10
million in funding for that issue in that region. Vital Voices
raises the voices of emerging women leaders from around the
world who are forging the way to democracy.
Moving ahead to Women 2000, Beijing plus five--in
September, 1995, the United States joined 188 other governments
at the United Nations. The United Nations joins 180 other
governments in Beijing for the significant turning point on how
the world looked at the issues affecting women and their
families. The document that came out of that U.N. conference
was a very strong policy statement.
In June, 2000, looking ahead, the United States will join
most of the other nations of the world at a special session of
the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The purpose is
to appraise and assess the progress it made in advancing the
status of women.
To hold the U.S. Government accountable for Beijing
followup, the President's council has put together a resource
document, a reference tool called The 2000 Edition of America's
Commitment. This is a 5-year review of U.S. Government
programs. This document highlights U.S. efforts measured
against the Beijing document, The Platform for Action. I have
brought along copies of the book today for Members of the
Committee, and we are mailing that out to NGO's and sharing it
with other governments around the world.
The Beijing conference has unleashed changes for the better
for women everywhere. In the past 5 years, I have had an
opportunity to meet with women from every continent who
recounted with pride how they are achieving progress in their
country, spurred on by the U.N. women's conference.
There are now more laws on the books against domestic
violence, new violence protection programs in place and legal
aid centers from Sri Lanka to Bulgaria. Women have greater
access to micro credit. In Rwanda, the government is revising
discriminatory laws in the area of inheritance rights, which is
so important to the survivors of the Rwanda genocide. A new
constitution in Venezuela allows women for the first time to
transfer citizenship to their foreign born spouses.
Mr. Chairman, I turn now to the women's international bill
of rights, as Congresswoman Woolsey calls it, the convention to
end all forms of discrimination against women. The
Administration feels strongly that CEDAW must be ratified. Its
ratification is an administration priority. The President, the
First Lady and the Secretary of State have repeatedly called
for its ratification.
We have worked closely with NGO's in their quest for
ratification of this treaty. I would like to note the tireless
efforts of Kit Cosby, Pat Rengel and their working group on the
ratification of CEDAW, as well as Billy Heller of California
and the National Committee for Ratification of CEDAW. I
understand that Kit and Pat are here today, and we thank them
for their guidance and support.
These groups should be commended for their efforts.
American citizens have been working for the past 20 years on
this issue. At least 10 states have endorsed ratification of
CEDAW in their own state legislatures.
I would also like to thank the 33 cosponsors who
reintroduced Senate Resolution 279 in support of CEDAW and, of
course, the Members of the House, some of whom have come
forward today, who have been supportive of Congresswoman
Woolsey's legislative efforts on behalf of CEDAW.
Some say that only radical feminists support CEDAW. This is
not true. Support comes from organizations and citizens across
the broad spectrum of our society. The Gray Panthers, AARP, the
National Coalition of American Nuns, the National Council of
Negro Women, the American Bar Association all have endorsed
CEDAW. The list goes on and on.
CEDAW removes obstacles to women's full enjoyment of their
rights. It does not create an international right to abortion.
Rather, it seeks to insure equal access for men and women to
health care services. It does not encroach on the principle of
federalism or violate U.S. sovereignty. Rather, it reinforces
U.S. commitment to equality and human rights.
The United States is one of the world's leading advocates
for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Ratification would
strengthen our global efforts to advance the status of women.
I would like to talk briefly about the importance family
planning plays in the lives of women around the world. One
hundred and fifty million women in the developing world want to
space or limit their child bearing, but have no access to
family planning. Family planning saves lives, protects women's
health, promotes healthy families and prevents abortion. Real
world evidence in places like Russia and eastern Europe shows
that family planning can do just that.
As we look ahead to the fifth year review of Beijing, one
of the most extraordinary changes we have seen around the world
is the willingness of governments to step forward and to stand
up for women's human rights. I started my position as senior
coordinator for international women's issues just a few days
after the Taliban moved into Kabul and Afghanistan and shocked
the world with their regressive restrictions on women.
Sadly, these restrictions remain today, but the promotion
of human rights, particularly the human rights of women and
girls, is among our highest priorities in Afghanistan. The
international community must remain steadfast and united in its
resolve to seek wider rights and opportunities for Afghan women
and girls. The United States will not move away from this
agenda.
The Clinton Administration has an unprecedented record in
achieving progress for women, but there is still work to be
done. There is a momentum now from villages to towns and
countries around the world. The commitment women and men
everywhere have shown to improve the lives of women, girls and
their families will continue into the twenty-first century.
We thank the Members of Congress who work with us on this
agenda for lasting change and progress. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Loar appears in the
appendix.]
Mr. Rohrabacher [presiding]. Thank you very much. I am
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. We have had a change at the helm
here.
Ms. Loar, I will just take advantage of the fact that I am
now the Chair to ask a few questions of my own. I could not
help but notice that you were, of course, strongly advocating
the CEDAW. Is that how it is pronounced?
Ms. Loar. Yes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The CEDAW conference or proposal, and then
you were focusing on Congress' inaction. To what then do you
ascribe the failure of the Clinton Administration to obtain the
ratification of CEDAW in the 2 years, 1993 and 1994, when
President Clinton was President, but the Democratic party had
control of both houses of Congress?
Ms. Loar. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the consensus in
support for women's human rights has been one that has been
growing and one that has increased, and I think our----
Mr. Rohrabacher. The President did not have a commitment at
the beginning of his Administration?
Ms. Loar. Oh, I think he had. I think he came into office
with that commitment. I think we have seen that commitment
growing and evidenced in many strong ways, and that is why we
are continuing to fight for passage of CEDAW.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I do not think that quite answered my
question. Why did he not do it in the first 2 years----
Ms. Loar. Well, actually the President did.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. When he had all the power to
do it?
Ms. Loar. President Clinton did send the treaty. President
Carter some 20 years ago signed the treaty and did send it to
the Senate for ratification.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Loar. We made very clear our efforts to endorse the
purpose of CEDAW. We did send it up to the Senate for
ratification. We worked very hard to work out the reservations
so that those areas where there were some perhaps
misrepresentations or misunderstandings were clarified. We have
been very clear in pushing this.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So this was in that 2-year period, 1993
and 1994, that the Administration did that?
Ms. Loar. These efforts have been going on for some time.
It was sent to the Senate in 1994.
Mr. Rohrabacher. It was sent to the Senate in 1994. When in
1994 was it sent?
Ms. Loar. I do not know the exact date. I would probably
say in the summer, perhaps June or July.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So in the final months of those first 2
years when you had control of both houses it was sent to the
Senate. Was there any agreement made by the Democratically
controlled Senate to bring this to a vote?
Ms. Loar. I can say that there was broad support for CEDAW
when it was first brought to the Senate. We know that there is
very broad support now, and we know that the basic elements of
CEDAW and what it represents, that agenda----
Mr. Rohrabacher. I am not asking about right now. I am
asking about when the Democrats controlled both houses of
Congress and the presidency why did they did not act.
Ms. Loar. I cannot speak to that. I can speak to right now
the need for CEDAW and the----
Mr. Rohrabacher. OK.
Ms. Loar [continuing]. Interest on behalf of women around
the world for it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All I would suggest is when you say that
this Administration has such a pristine record on women's
rights that we take into consideration when it could have done
anything on this issue that it wanted and controlled both
houses of Congress and the Executive Branch, it did nothing.
You mentioned your own situation and your own recognition
of the rights of women in Afghanistan. How long have you been
in your job at the State Department?
Ms. Loar. Since September 1996.
Mr. Rohrabacher. OK. You have undoubtedly heard my demands
over and over again for the records dealing with this
Administration's policies toward Afghanistan. Have you
personally tried to see that I and this Committee received a
copy of the documents we requested in order to determine what
the policy of this Administration toward the Taliban is?
Ms. Loar. Mr. Chairman, I know well of your interest and
support for the people of Afghanistan. I am not familiar with
your request for documents. I have not----
Mr. Rohrabacher. You are not?
Ms. Loar. I am not aware of that, but I do know well of
your interest and support.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You are not familiar with that?
Ms. Loar. I am not personally. I have not heard anything
about that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Just so you will know, and I want to state
for the record, having been in Afghanistan a number of times--I
am probably the Congress' foremost expert on Afghanistan--I
have charged this Administration has a covert policy of
supporting the Taliban, and the Taliban would not be in power
if it was not for this Administration wanting it and cutting
deals with the Saudis and the Pakistanis to see that the
Taliban were there.
I have demanded, and received support from the Chairman of
this Committee, a request for the documents that would prove or
disprove that charge. For over 2 years, this Administration has
done everything they could to block me from the documents and
block this Committee from legitimate oversight.
I will tell you right now, for someone who supposedly is
concerned about women's rights, for you not to have waded in
behind the scenes, calls into question your commitment whether
it is a political commitment to this Administration or a
commitment to the rights of women that you are talking about
today.
The most gross violator of women's rights in the world
today is the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and this
Administration's policies in regard to the Taliban have been
disgraceful and deceitful to the American people. This
Committee has oversight responsibility to find out what this
Administration's policies have been, and this Administration
has stonewalled us and blocked our ability to find out what
policies we have had toward Afghanistan.
To make it very clear for you, we expect people like
yourselves, who are behind the scenes and in the Administration
who supposedly support women's rights, to be pressuring the
Administration to do what their public positions indicate they
should be doing.
Again, I would hope that in the next few months this
Administration will finally provide the documents for the time
period that I requested to find out what the policy of this
Administration was toward the creation and support of the
Taliban's control of Afghanistan.
I would say that issue overrides many of the things that
you have been talking about today, and I would hope that when
you go back to the State Department that you personally
activate yourself to see that those documents are available and
that if you find that this Administration has been supporting
the Taliban that you join with us, whatever party, to try to
change that policy. It is a disgrace.
I will be very happy to hear whatever you want to retort to
that, and then we will let one of our colleagues speak.
Ms. Loar. Let me say that I will carry back your request of
the State Department. I will carry that back with me as I
return to the State Department this afternoon.
I would just say that the Secretary of State has been very
direct and clear in her criticism of the Taliban for its
treatment of women and girls. It is gratifying to know you
share that concern. I know you have a deep, long-term interest
in Afghanistan. Our record is very strong and very clear, and
we are going to continue to have that record.
Mr. Rohrabacher. The record of this Administration is not
very strong and clear. It is deceitful, and it is false. I do
not care if Madeleine Albright talks about human rights and
goes over to China or we have an Administration that is kissing
the boots of these gangsters. All the talk about human rights
does not mean a darn thing if the Administration does not put
any force behind it in China.
I will tell you, her words in Afghanistan do not mean
anything to these fascist thugs who run Afghanistan and treat
women the way they do when we have an administration that has
cut a back room deal with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to support
them and keep them in power.
This Administration disarmed the opposition to the Taliban.
Bill Richardson and Rick Interfurth went to CABO and then went
to the Northern Alliance at a pivotal moment and disarmed the
opposition to the Taliban.
We also have an opposition right now under Commander
Musuad. People like yourself who supposedly believe in human
rights for women and make that your priority should be doing
everything you can to see that this Administration not disarms
the opposition to the Taliban, but supports Musuad and supports
those people in Afghanistan who do not believe in this type of
oppression, not only of women, but of everyone else.
I will say right now I was in Afghanistan during the war.
This oppression of women, which they say is just cultural, is
not something that the people of Afghanistan fought for when
they were trying to kick the Russians out. They may be
developing Muslims, but they are not fanatics. This reflects
the Pakistani and the Saudi brand of Islam, if you will.
With that, I am sorry, but I do feel strongly about this
obviously. It is not just for women's rights, but for
everybody's rights.
Ms. Loar. Mr. Chairman, I would agree that the restrictions
and the human rights abuses against women in Afghanistan are
not culturally based, and I would agree that our government's--
perhaps we do not agree about this, but my belief is that our
government has been very strong in standing up to women of
Afghanistan.
We will continue to do that. I will take back your concerns
to the State Department. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you.
Ms. Woolsey or Ms. Lee? Which one comes first?
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me go back to the treaty. I would like to find out just
in terms of your work--and thank you for everything you have
done and for being here today----
Ms. Loar. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. What does the United States face when we try to
talk to other nations about discrimination against women? Does
our failure to ratify CEDAW undercut our efforts actually to be
a leader in international women's issues?
Ms. Loar. Well, Congresswoman Lee, it is actually quite an
embarrassment to go to U.N. conferences where the United States
has a strong human rights record, and there will be discussions
about institutional mechanisms, treaties, powerful documents
that can be used to help women, and it is repeated again and
again, whether it is at U.N. meetings or at OSCE meetings like
Congressman Hastings referred to where there was a big effort
to fight trafficking or whether it is in meetings supporting
women's role in democracy. I have been in meetings in Latin
America where there is a real focus on trying to fight violence
against women in the home.
Again and again we are reminded that we as a government
have not ratified this treaty, so it is an embarrassment. It is
a setback. Ratification of the treaty would help move us
forward in the work we are trying to do for women's human
rights.
Ms. Lee. Which countries do we align ourselves with at this
point?
Ms. Loar. Well, it is not a very enviable coalition of
countries that have not ratified CEDAW. It includes Iraq. It
includes Somalia. It includes some other countries who are not
known for their strong brand of democracy.
All of Latin America, every single nation of Latin America,
has ratified CEDAW, and many of them are using it to help
improve the lives of women and girls. We are in a very
unattractive grouping of countries and one that does not put us
in a strong stead as a strong leader for democracy around the
world in not ratifying CEDAW.
Ms. Lee. As I mentioned earlier, of course, we are still
faced here in this country with massive discrimination against
women. Ratifying CEDAW, how would that help us in terms of
using the treaty as a tool to help women here in America deal
with discrimination?
Ms. Loar. Well, our laws currently already exceed a lot of
the standards in CEDAW, so we do not expect it to have a
dramatic effect on the U.S. laws related to women's status.
More than anything, we see it as a very powerful tool that
will help us in our work internationally and as part of the
international community supporting women's advancement.
Ms. Lee. Let me just make a comment, Mr. Chairman, because
I think one of the reasons that we need to move forward and
quickly ratify CEDAW is to send a message, though, to our
courts here in this country and to all of those with
jurisdiction over implementing anti-discrimination policies
which we have in place here.
Often times I believe they are just there either for women
who have the money and the means to mount lawsuits or they are
there because we passed the law, but I believe in passing this
treaty we would have at least the moral obligation to move
forward with our anti-discrimination laws against women in this
country, so I see this as a very necessary tool for me as an
African-American women in America who needs these kinds of
mechanisms on record and internationally also.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you
will not be surprised that Afghanistan has not ratified CEDAW.
Mr. Rohrabacher. No pressure from the Administration
obviously.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I have to tell you, speaking of the
Administration, and this will lead me into my question with Ms.
Loar.
I was elected in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected, and
one of the first items that was a part of my agenda was the
ratification of CEDAW. During that time Bill Clinton and the
State Department started working with the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
Because we know that our President likes to reach out
across party lines, he worked with the State Department and
with Senator Helms to iron out concerns. That took up all of
the rest of the time that it would have taken to bring it to
the Senate Floor and get it passed. Then we lost the Majority,
and then it was straight downhill.
Now, I do not think this should be a partisan issue. I
mean, this is a women's human rights issue. What I would like
from you, Ms. Loar, because you are part of the State
Department, what does the State Department need from us? You
have done your part. The Secretary of State has written to the
Senate. The President has asked the Senate to ratify. What do
we have to do?
Ms. Loar. We understand that there are discussions about
the possibility of hearings to get the issue fully explored and
to be able to have a strong basis for ratification. We know
that the resolution that you have sponsored in gaining support
even today here as we speak, we think resolutions of that
nature are very helpful to give a sense to the Senate in their
role in ratifying the treaty that there is a groundswell of
support. We would like to see more of that.
We know from the groups that have worked so tirelessly here
in the United States, here in Washington and all across the
United States that there is a lot of support at the grassroots
for ratification of this treaty, and we think that will be
reflected ultimately in passage of the treaty.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I thank you, and you can count on us to
work with you.
Ms. Loar. And we thank you for your leadership on that.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, when I came in here I had 111 cosponsors on
H. Res. 107, and I am leaving with 113; 114 if you will sign on
it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Congratulations. I will take a look.
There is a question that they want me to ask for the
record, and if you could perhaps answer in writing if you would
like? I will just read this to you for the record, and then you
could reply for the record as well.
In the case of another international human rights
convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the United Nations body, with responsibility for
overseeing the implementation of that covenant, has ruled that
as a matter of international law, the U.S. reservations to the
covenant have no legal effect. This means that when the
covenant was ratified there were reservations that were put
into it as part of the legislation of ratification by the
Congress, but now we have that body saying those reservations
do not have any effect, no legal effect or no legal voice.
Here is the question. Does the United States accept the
validity of this ruling by that panel, and what assurances can
you give the Committee, which oversees the implementation of
this convention, that the elimination of discrimination against
women, and that if there are reservations during this whole
process, in the ratification process, that there will not be a
similar ruling that the reservations of this convention have no
legal force or effect?
First of all, you can answer that in writing, or if you
would like to answer it now that is fine.
Ms. Loar. Mr. Chairman, with your agreement I would like to
answer that in writing. I will take that question back with me.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. This is vitally important because it
goes to the heart of the power of Congress to----
Ms. Loar. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher [continuing]. Pass to what degree and if we
take everything or leave everything because if all our
reservations are declared null and void by the United Nations
that means that it is take it or leave it time for Congress
from now on if the policy of the Administration is to accept
that as the policy.
Thank you very much for being a witness, and also thank you
for--I mean, I came in and came on very strong, and I believe
what I believe in. I would hope that you did take my admonition
about someone who is serious about women's rights.
Frankly, I am shocked that you had not heard of my demand
and these charges that I have been making for 2 years. This has
been a struggle on my part to try to get the documentation to
prove something that indicates that this Administration is
involved in a heinous crime against women. As I say, I am just
surprised that you not only have not acted upon it, but have
not heard about it.
I would hope that people in the Administration, like
yourself, who are committed to human rights and are committed
especially to women's rights will pay attention to this battle
and struggle that I have been waging for 2 years.
I can think of no greater threat to the rights of women in
the world today than the acceptance of the Taliban form of
Islam in other countries that have Islamic populations. If
other countries which have Islamic populations start taking the
lead from the Taliban, hundreds of millions of women will lose
their rights and will find a dramatic decrease in their rights
and find themselves in subjugation of the worst possible kind.
The only thing that we can do is try to forcefully oppose this
type of government that they have in the Taliban in
Afghanistan.
Let me note that we had an alternative. The King of
Afghanistan, who has been in exile since the Russians took
over, his wife was the one who first helped liberate the women
of Afghanistan 50 years ago. He is a very pro western and
moderate alternative for the people of Afghanistan who would
love to have had the alternative.
But, this Administration went in the other direction and
instead undermined any efforts to bring the King back and
undermined the efforts of the Northern Alliance, which are
composed of people who are even more consistent with how you
would like to see women treated in the Islamic countries, yet
this Administration continually undermined the efforts of these
groups to change the government of Afghanistan. It is an
important issue, and it is important not just for women, but
for everyone who believes in a broad sense of human rights that
cover both genders and not just women's rights.
I hope that you will take a look into it, and I hope that
behind the scenes you will tell them that, No. 1, you expect
the documents that we have requested be made available, and if
those documents indicate that this Administration had a covert
policy of supporting this horrendous, fascistic regime, the
Taliban regime, that you will publicly or privately try to do
what you can to change that policy.
With that, I want to thank you for again being here today
and putting up with my confrontation, and I declare this
hearing adjourned.
Ms. Loar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
May 3, 2000
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7625.030